I serve as the elected Sheriff of Riverside County and have done so since 2007. Riverside County, at nearly 2.3 million residents, is California's 4th most populous, as well as the 4th largest in sheer physical size at 7,300 sq miles, of our State's 58 counties. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department, at nearly 2,200 sworn employees and nearly 4,000 full-time employees is the 5th largest of California's police and sheriff's departments. In addition to providing court security, coroner operations, and jail operations, the Sheriff's department provides police services under contract to 17 of our county's 28 cities.

I have served in full-time sworn California law enforcement since 1975, first as a city police officer, and then within the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. I also was commissioned as an Army officer and retired from the Army Reserve as a colonel after 30 years of service. I have had over 4 decades of participation in the various shooting sports, and am very familiar with public safety, the criminal justice system, military weapons, and the firearms policy issues involved in both past and current debates on gun control.

I have taken the time to review the materials your office has put out publicly on your recently proposed federal legislation "Assault Weapons ban of 2013." Although our state and local law enforcement agencies do not enforce federal laws, and you have served our State well over many years in many ways, I do not support this proposed legislation, and I recommend others in Congress also oppose it.

In many ways your bill unreasonably impinges on the Second Amendment, and it focuses largely on purely "cosmetic" features of legitimate sporting, hunting and recreational firearms already in widespread use within our nation. The cosmetic issues alone cause far too much meaningless complexity for law enforcement officers, and worse, could cause common citizens to unintentionally commit crimes that have serious potential sanctions.

What really concerns me is that the term "assault weapon or assault rifle" is a misnomer, coined by gun control advocates that also incorrectly use that term with the phrase "weapons of war (or, "weapons from the battlefield") have no business on our civilian streets," in an effort to frighten or confuse the public. Even a little research will underscore that military "assault rifles" fire fully automatic, or 3-round burst, and that military feature is their defining characteristic. These civilian-style semi-automatic rifles are essentially no different  other than cosmetics  than millions of other semi-automatic rifles used by civilians for hunting, competition and sporting purposes  for generations of Americans for over a century.

Many of our state and local law enforcement agencies authorize these very same civilian-style semi-automatic rifles that are subject to your ban for self-purchase, in lieu of spending increasingly scarce taxpayer collars, to practice with and to use on-duty as patrol rifles in order to defend themselves, for use at the distance we see in our rural areas. It would seem that same self-defense use for our citizens, not in law enforcement, in much of our nation's rural areas, should also be part of their inherent right pursuant to the Second Amendment. In this same fashion, some of the shotguns you seek to ban are used by our officers and should also be available to citizens for hunting, recreation and self-defense as well. Again the cosmetic attributes seem to be the defining criteria.

The central target of your proposed bill  the AR-15 series platform  is probably the most prolific rifle platform in our country today. It is enormously popular because it is "uniquely American," modular, adaptable for the size and sex of the user, and is capable of multiple uses: hunting, competition, recreational shooting and self-defense. Because of the generally high costs involved in those rifles, it is relatively rare that law enforcement comes into contact with them in contrast to smaller, more concealable, and cheaper firearms.

The AR-15 series semi-automatic rifle is literally a modern American "musket," and that is evidenced by the massive panic-buying going today as a result of your proposed bill and still others at the state level.

I think all of us universally support increased efforts in keeping firearms (and other weapons) out of the hands of those who should not have them, and increased sanctions for those who willfully misuse them. In your own State, California, we could dearly use greatly increased funding for our overcrowded local jails and state prisons, so that those very sanctions would have meaning and deterrent value.

I thank you for your long and distinguished service to our State and to our Nation, but I urge you to abandon this bill, as it is really a "pretext gun control" bill for increased regulations that are unreasonable and unnecessary. And, I believe it is overreaching within the context of our Second Amendment. It places legitimate citizens, both now and in the future, at potential risk of not being able to lawfully defend themselves, or to participate in legitimate recreational shooting sports that should be available to all across our great nation. In the end, I believe this proposed bill will cause far more harm than any good.

I remain at your service, and can be reached in Riverside at (951)955-0147 or ssniff@riversidesheriff.org for any further information or questions.

There’s only one base and he didn’t cover it. The Second Amendment exists to reaffirm and assure the fourth inalienable right listed in the Declaration of Independence - the right of the people to “alter or abolish” a tyrannical government.

Writings such as The Federalist go so far as to explicitly state the 2nd is in the Constitution because the people need to be armed as a fail-safe for overthrowing the Federal government. “Federal” being named specifically as the subject in question.

I don’t mean to be preachy. I’m tired and cranky. Tomorrow I may read this and think, “Wow. I’m a jerk.”

.....again.

23
posted on 02/03/2013 12:39:10 AM PST
by Psycho_Bunny
(Thought Puzzle: Describe Islam without using the phrase "mental disorder" more than four times.)

Many of our state and local law enforcement agencies authorize these very same civilian-style semi-automatic rifles that are subject to your ban for self-purchase, in lieu of spending increasingly scarce taxpayer collars, to practice with and to use on-duty as patrol rifles in order to defend themselves, for use at the distance we see in our rural areas. It would seem that same self-defense use for our citizens, not in law enforcement, in much of our nation's rural areas, should also be part of their inherent right pursuant to the Second Amendment. In this same fashion, some of the shotguns you seek to ban are used by our officers and should also be available to citizens for hunting, recreation and self-defense as well.

The AR-15 series semi-automatic rifle is literally a modern American "musket," and that is evidenced by the massive panic-buying going today as a result of your proposed bill and still others at the state level.

The wind and the sun argued one day over which one was the stronger. Spotting a man man traveling on the road, they sported a challenge to see which one could remove the coat from the man's back the quickest.

The wind began. He blew strong gusts of air, so strong that the man could barely walk against them. But the man clutched his coat tight against him. The wind blew harder and longer, and the harder the wind blew, the tighter the man held his coat against him.The wind blew until he was exhausted, but he could not remove the coat from the man's back.

It was now the sun's turn. He gently sent his beams upon the traveler. The sun did very little, but quietly shone upon his head and back until the man became so warm that he took off his coat and headed for the nearest shade tree.

24
posted on 02/03/2013 1:52:29 AM PST
by conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)

Some of my Liberal "friends" and the Waco Trib made a big deal about our sheriff having sworn an oath to enforce the law....

When I stop laughing and listing the sins of Barack the Lawless I make this point:

How many innocent citizens were murdered by their own governments because local officials in Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Cuba, (and on an on), did not question laws they knew were wrong and blindly followed them? The VERY first training I recieved in BCT was that it was my DUTY to refuse to follow illegal orders.

25
posted on 02/03/2013 4:35:53 AM PST
by Feckless
(I was trained by the US << This Tagline Censored by FR >> ain't that irOnic?)

It’s okay to be “cranky and tired”, we all are..... I know that I sure am sick of what all is going on in our country.

I am pleased to see that Sheriffs in nearly every state have come out in support of our side. Obama and his filthy democrats are very formidable enemies, so we need all the help we can get.

I would much rather have the Sheriffs in the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.

I doubt very much that we will ever see an elected Sheriff preach about: “the right of the people to alter or abolish a tyrannical government.”, at least not until things get far worse in this country. Of course, at the lightning speed that our country is devolving, that reality could be around the next bend.

As for me, I will continue try to enjoy what is good in my life, while I prepare for the coming storm.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.